As I often do, I was reading Americans United this morning. I found a couple articles that I thought interesting, but one stood out. President Bush has made little secret of his pro-life stance. The jurisprudence of the country has made no exception for health care providers, pharmacists, etc., who refused to provide prophylactics because it conflicted with their position against birth control. Now, it should be no secret that for the majority of people in this situation, this conviction against birth control is religious in nature. This is where the problem comes in.
You see, President Bush wants to pass legislation that would "deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions." (quote from the link provided). You see, President Bush wants to force these facilities to allow employees to not fill birth control prescriptions. This is unfortunate, that he wants to legislate according to his religious beliefs.
I don't begrudge the President his religious convictions. But I do take issue with him using his position to influence others to comport with his religious convictions. If these individuals have a problem with providing the legal care requested of their patients, then they have an alternative - they can take another job. It's really that simple. You don't need to hold the hospital or pharmacy hostage by denying them money because of a religious principle. There's no call for that at all.
1 comment:
Conversely, should the laws of America allow an individual to be fired from his job simply because his "practice" of religion does not permit compliance with the law.
Frankly, I think this is a non-issue. I presume there are more Americans, regardless of their religious views, who would provide prophylactics. I don't think there is a danger that women will suddenly be unable to procure the pill.
Why do we need to legislate one way or the other?
Post a Comment